A man mixed his sperm with his dad's to help his former girlfriend conceive their little boy - and, according to the High Court, there is a 'strong chance' that the five-year-old's 'grandad' could actually be his biological father.
Mr Justice Poole explained that if that is the case, the bloke who the youngster - known only as D - believes to be his dad would in fact be his half-brother.
The case was brought before the court after Barnsley Council lodged a legal bid to unveil the true parentage of the child after discovering the details of his unorthodox conception in separate proceedings.
The local authority called on Sheffield's High Court to order that DNA tests must be carried out to to determine which man was D's father.
Advert
But Mr Poole today (15 February) dismissed the bid, saying that the council had 'no stake in the outcome' and that a paternity test 'is a matter for them [the family]' to decide on.
At a hearing last month, it was explained that a man, referred to as PQ, and his then-partner, referred to as JK, had both agreed to combine his sperm with his own father's, who was referred to as RS.
The former couple had experienced fertility struggles and were unable to afford IVF treatment - which can cost up upwards of £5,000 per each cycle - on top of fees for freezing, storage, embryo transfers and insemination.
The mixed sperm was then injected into the woman, who later became pregnant and gave birth to a little boy.
The court heard how the arrangement between the family was 'always intended' to be kept a secret.
Mr Poole said that the brood had 'created a welfare minefield', saying: "I cannot believe that JK, PQ and RS properly thought through the ramifications of their scheme for JK to become pregnant, otherwise it is unlikely that they would have embarked upon it."
He said that D is a 'unique child who would not exist but for the unusual arrangements made for his conception'.
"But those arrangements have also created the potential for him to suffer emotional harm were he to learn of them," the judge added.
The little boy had an established father-and-son relationship with PQ, so Mr Poole said it was up to the former couple to 'manage the latent risks to his welfare'.
He continued: "It must be acknowledged that the circumstances of D's conception cannot now be undone.
"Without testing, his biological paternity remains uncertain but there is a strong chance, to say the least, that the person he thinks is his grandfather is his biological father, and that the person he thinks is his father is his biological half-brother."
The court ruled that the council do have have a parental responsibility or a 'personal interest' in finding out the boy's biological parentage.
He said: "It may wish to know who is D's biological father, but it has no stake in the outcome of its application.
"A wish to uphold the public interest in maintaining accurate records of births does not confer a personal interest in the determination of such an application."
Olivia Burke